At this stage in the product cycle, Eclipse had a far larger backlog than Cirrus.

Without the Chinese purchase of Cirrus, they would be defunct. Eclipse failed at a time when the Chinese were not buying every aviation company they could. In fact, the Chinese are currently propping up Eclipse #2, One Aviation, during their bankruptcy, and seem poised to own that, too.

Mike C.

OK, agreed on a cost per hour basis perhaps, but if the reduced complexity lowers the cost to purchase and maintain, perhaps it would make the airplane available to a market that can't afford the purchase and upkeep of a twin jet.

If Jason's right and the target demographic doesn't care about how high you can go, just where and how comfortably, then there's something to be said for the Cirrus. If you have to pay 50% more to get another engine to be more efficient, how efficient is that really in dollars and cents?

FL410 and 370 knots is more comfortable. Over more weather, faster to destination. Ultimately, an airplane is about speed and the twin jet is way faster.

When an engine fails, the twin is WAY more comfortable.


There's no overall premium to buy a twin jet of the same capability. Take the SF50 design, lop off the tail, put two PW610F engines and conventional tail on it. Costs the same to make and would have been to market years earlier.

Mike C.

Seems to me since Cirrus had the chance to rebrand the SF50 allowing for a new price tag (ingenious but I predicted it long ago ), if it is 2.7 typically equipped, they must be able to make a profit at that price. I don't think they are making money on the G1 position jets, though. So I am guessing, maybe 2 mil per copy is cost, and they can take the 0.7 mil for future support innovation, profit. Looks like a solid plane.

"When an engine fails, the twin is WAY more comfortable"

In the short term, probably yes.

Long term, the issue will be how much the order book will shrink at the new price, and whether there are sustaining sales to support making the plane in reasonable volume, say at least 50 per year, after the order book is cleared. The lower volumes trickles through the entire supply chain, for example, Williams OEM contract likely has pricing that increases dramatically when volumes fall.

Eclipse#2 raised the price to $3M, sales were almost non existent, and thus they couldn't make money even at that price. When Cirrus gets to the end of the order book, which might end up being 300 now, will sales be strong enough to keep the line operating at efficient volumes?

You can't just raise prices and expect the same sales volume. That's business 101. At close to $3M price point, the value proposition is quite different than the "about $1M" price the project started at.


That's pretty clear given the new prices.

It is better for Cirrus to build 300 planes at a profit than 600 planes at a loss.

Mike C.

That SF50 video was pretty good. They bring a lot of energy. I enjoyed the Baron video, but clearly it was directed to a different audience. Piper is kind of in the middle, just looking at some of their videos for the M600. I think it is about time for an updated video, especially since their next generation M600 is about to roll out. You see the same energy when you go to their booth at OSH. I think it is exciting that they are reinvigorating light GA. I would still take my bird over an SF50 for my often very challenging missions, but would be happy to see 10 of them on every ramp keeping FBO's open at smaller airports around the country.

https://www.piper.com/aircraft/m-class/m600/

ended up finding that vid here,
https://www.euroga.org/forums/aircraft/ ... ad?page=74

when fishing around for a poh or detailed info which i did find some & will post,

plenty of stuff right there in a euro cirrusjet thread that includes

If you only fly 300 miles (the average length of a turbine flight).
What matters more over the life of the plane?
1. Cheap to purchase?
2. Super efficient cruise fuel flow?

Tim

One other point. Cirrus just got approval with the G2 for 135 operations.

That means, they have dramatically expanded the potential market. Especially when you consider all the short haul charter flights.

Tim

Then an SR will do the job and you don't need a jet.

The average car trip is 9.4 miles.

Nobody buys a car with 10 miles of range.

My average leg length is a bit over an hour. However, 85% of my travel time is spent on legs that go longer than an hour.

Mike C.

i'd think the shorter strips deal is yuuuge

Can't be, impossible, a guy on the internet who is an expert on everything said they would never approve that. He also said they would never get RVSM with a single engine. This must all be fake news.

I thought you were working on a wall?

Mike C.